[xzins]

We'll know when they get prosecuted.

It clearly was classified info. They clearly came across it in an unauthorized way. They clearly published it.

I'm betting they'll not be prosecuted.

After the leaking of the Pentagon Papers, the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent their publicatin. The Scotus ruled against them 6-3. The decision was essentially that there are no limits on the 1st amendment freedom of the press.

The administration attempted to prosecute the leakers....only to discover that we didn't have a law that made leaking illegal. (Since remedied.)

My point is that the Nixon Admin wanted to go after the leakers because they COULD NOT go after the Times. Likewise, we'll not have anyone go after the Times in the Finance Leak because they don't think they can. They'll go after the leakers.

If they succeed that will be as effective as going after the NYT. It will stop it in the future.

[Mia T]

 

When the founders granted 'The Press' special dispensation, they never considered the possibility that traitors in our midst would game the system. But that is precisely what is happening today. (Hate America? Support jihad? Become a 'journalist!')

This was bound to happen.

The premise behind the First Amendment as it applies to the press--that a vigilant watchdog is necessary, sufficient--indeed, possible--to protect against man's basest instincts--is tautologically flawed: The fox guarding the White House, if you will.

<snip>

If President George W. Bush is serious about winning the War on Terror, he will aggressively pursue the enemy in our midst.

Targeting and defeating the enemy in our midst is, by far, the more difficult task and will measure Bush's resolve and courage (and his independence from the MPRDC (mutual protection racket in DC)) more than any pretty speech, more even than 'staying the course.'

READ MORE

IN A 'PINCH': RETHINKING THE FIRST AMENDMENT
(Which came first, the 'journalist' or the traitor?)
by Mia T, 6.27.06